Existentialism and the meaning of life

goat said:
I used to allow this to influence what I was reading. Now I know that Stalin turned the Soviet Union from a backward society into an industrial and military superpower. Stalin was a man of action, or what Nietzsche calls Higher Man, who are above the herd.
Click to expand...
Nietzsche was not political. His writings are not advice to political leaders.
 
Hume said:
There is a good argument that Christianity is a criminal enterprise because the Catholic Church routinely rapes children.
Click to expand...
That's an argument you actually have made numerous times, but then you cry foul and howl in protest if it's pointed out prominent Existentialist philosophers were pro-Nazi and pro-Stalin.
 
Cypress said:
That's an argument you actually have made numerous times, but then you cry foul and howl in protest if it's pointed out prominent Existentialist philosophers were pro-Nazi and pro-Stalin.
Click to expand...
I never defended Heidegger for being a Nazi.
 
Cypress said:
The message of existentialism, unlike that of many more obscure and academic philosophical movements, is about as simple as can be. It is that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible—responsible for what we do, responsible for who we are, responsible for the way we face and deal with the world, responsible, ultimately, for the way the world is. It is, in a very short phrase, the philosophy of “no excuses!” Life may be difficult; circumstances may be impossible. There may be obstacles, not least of which are our own personalities, characters, emotions, and limited means or intelligence. But, nevertheless, we are responsible. We cannot shift that burden onto God, or nature, or the ways of the world. If there is a God, we choose to believe. If nature made us one way, it is up to us to decide what we are to do with what nature gives us—whether to go along or fi ght back, to modify or transcend nature. That is what existentialism is all about. We are responsible for ourselves. There are no excuses.

Existentialism is a movement, a “sensibility,” not a set of doctrines.It is not, as it is too often said, a necessarily “gloomy” philosophy. It is, rather, invigorating and positive. Nor is it necessarily atheistic - Soren Kierkegaard is a pious Christian; Nietzsche and Sartre are atheists; Sartre was a Marxist; Camus, a humanitarian; Heidegger, a Nazi.

Three themes pervade existentialism:

- A strong emphasis on the individual (although this is variously defined and understood). A lot of these writers were truly eccentric. Each of them takes individuality in a different direction.

- The central role of the passions, as opposed to the usual philosophical emphasis on reason and rationality. The emphasis instead is on a passionate commitment. For the existentialist, to live is to live passionately.

- The importance of human freedom. Existentialists are concerned with personal freedom, both political freedom and free will. This is central to Kierkegaard and Sartre, but not so obviously to Nietzsche and Heidegger. The relationship between freedom and reason is particularly at issue. Traditionally, acting “rationally” is said to be free, while acting out of emotion is considered being a “slave to one’s passions.” The existentialists suggest that we live best and are most ourselves in terms of passion. Kierkegaard’s notion of “passionate commitment” is central.

The existentialists challenge the idea that human existence is so tied up with thinking. Existentialism basically urges us to live our lives to the fullest, although what this means will take somewhat different forms.




Source credit: Professor Robert C. Solomon, The University of Texas at Austin
Click to expand...
this is not what existentialism is all about.
 
goat said:
I used to allow this to influence what I was reading. Now I know that Stalin turned the Soviet Union from a backward society into an industrial and military superpower. Stalin was a man of action, or what Nietzsche calls Higher Man, who are above the herd.
Click to expand...
It's a bridge too far to speculate that Nietzsche would have thought Stalin fit his Ubermensch model, but what he did share with Stalin was a hostility to democracy and Christianity.
 
Cypress said:
It's a bridge too far to speculate that Nietzsche would have thought Stalin fit his Ubermensch model, but what he did share with Stalin was a hostility to democracy and Christianity.
Click to expand...
Even Churchill was hostile to democracy.

And Nietzsche never talked about the best form of government.
 
domer76 said:
I’m trying to start in on him. Finding it a bit of a challenge
Click to expand...
All those 19th century German philosophers are a slog to read. If you are comfortable PMing me an email, I have a PDF of a comprehensive survey of Nietzsche's life and works by Robert Solomon, a noted Nietzsche scholar, written in normal intelligible English
 
Cypress said:
It's a bridge too far to speculate that Nietzsche would have thought Stalin fit his Ubermensch model, but what he did share with Stalin was a hostility to democracy and Christianity.
Click to expand...
We hear that the top 1% rule the world but it's probably closer to 5% and the rest of us are afraid to make waves. It's my understanding that this is one of Nietzsche's main points. Nietzsche didn't see all the social evolution going on around him. He couldn't believe the established institutions were still in power. The next 20 or so years will put this to the test.
 
Cypress said:
All those 19th century German philosophers are a slog to read. If you are comfortable PMing me an email, I have a PDF of a comprehensive survey of Nietzsche's life and works by Robert Solomon, a noted Nietzsche scholar, written in normal intelligible English
Click to expand...
Or one could read Nietzsche. One of the most accessible philosophers to read.
 
Cypress said:
All those 19th century German philosophers are a slog to read. If you are comfortable PMing me an email, I have a PDF of a comprehensive survey of Nietzsche's life and works by Robert Solomon, a noted Nietzsche scholar, written in normal intelligible English
Click to expand...
If one is not able to understand Nietzsche, probably one should not be reading philosophy.
 
Hume said:
If one is not able to understand Nietzsche, probably one should not be reading philosophy.
Click to expand...
If one can't comprehend clearly written posts, one should not comment on them.

I didn't say Nietzsche was incomprehensible. I said he was a slog to read. He doesn't write in an economical and enjoyable manner like JRR Tolkien or David McCullough. I do not make a habit of reccomending Nietzsche books or a treatises on string theory to people who just have a casual interest in philosophy or science.
 
Cypress said:
If one can't comprehend clearly written posts, one should not comment on them.

I didn't say Nietzsche was incomprehensible. I said he was a slog to read. He doesn't write in an economical and enjoyable manner like JRR Tolkien or David McCullough. I do not make a habit of reccomending Nietzsche books or a treatises on string theory to people who just have a casual interest in philosophy or science.
Click to expand...
Even philosophers who do not like Nietzsche admit he is a good writer.
 
Hume said:
Even philosophers who do not like Nietzsche admit he is a good writer.
Click to expand...
I'll take that as your tacit confession that I never said Nietzsche was incomprehensible or terrible at writing.

It's just a slog for most people.

Here's an experiment. Give 'Beyond Good and Evil' to any of your relatives or neighbors, and see if any of them can make it past 20 pages.
 
Cypress said:
I'll take that as your tacit confession that I never said Nietzsche was incomprehensible or terrible at writing.

It's just a slog for most people.
Click to expand...
Nietzsche is considered one of the most accessible philosophers to read.

But, what are the philosophers you read that are less of a "slog?"
 
Hume said:
Nietzsche is considered one of the most accessible philosophers to read.

But, what are the philosophers you read that are less of a "slog?"
Click to expand...
Maybe you haven't read any books in a while, but to the modern sensibility, 19th century writing is archaic and dense to the 21st century mind. That doesn't mean it's incomprehensible. I've made it through Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kant.

But there's a reason that, outside of college classes and academic scholars, very few people are reading Moby Dick, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment. 19th century writing just seems archaic and unnecessarily dense to the modern reader.

If you don't believe me, just do my experiment, and give 'Beyond Good and Evil' to your neighbors, and see if any can make it past page 15.
 
Hume said:
I don't read past ad hominem attacks. i think that is all you are capable of.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should go scream at Domer. He's an intelligent guy who seemed to think Nietzsche was kind of a slog. I was just trying help him out.
 
Everything from the Big Bang is an equal and opposite reaction to Satan entering YHWH's space in Satan and a third of the Angels failed rebellion against YHWH!
Now we see things from many prisms ,but that event still shapes our daily lives!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top